10 April 2018
Victory Place Management Company Limited v Florian Gunter Kuehn and Gabrielle Maria Kuehn (Appeal No. CH-2017-000072 [ 2018 ] EWHC 132 (Ch)High Court of Justice – Chancery Division (on appeal from The County Court at Central London)
The Defendants were tenants under a long lease of an apartment in Victory Place, Limehouse. The lease prohibited the tenants from keeping pets following a majority view of the other residents.
The tenants sought consent from the management company ("VPMC") to keep their dog in the apartment. Consent was refused. The tenants argued that VPMC had acted unreasonably.
Victory Place comprises 146 flats/maisonettes in a gated residential development in Limehouse. The lease in question was granted in February 1998 and was assigned to the Defendants, Mr and Mrs Kuehn, in September 2014. The lease contained the following covenant:
"No dog, bird, cat or other animal or reptile shall be kept in the [Property] without the written consent of [VPMC]."
Mr and Mrs Kuehn sought consent from the actual landlord of Victory Place and this was granted on 18 September 2015. However, the covenant was also enforceable by VPMC, being the management company which represented the other residents.
It was clear from the evidence that between 2002 and 2014, VPMC enforced a strict "no pets" policy as this was the majority view of the lessees. Consequently, VPMC followed this policy with Mr and Mrs Kuehn and made clear to them at a meeting on 9 September 2015 that they would not be allowed to bring their pet dog, Vinnie, to live with them in the apartment following alterations that were being carried out.
There ensued further correspondence between VPMC's solicitors and Mr and Mrs Kuehn's legal advisers. VPMC made it clear that they would reconsider if there were any "special circumstances" and invited Mr and Mrs Kuehn to provide details of such circumstances, supported by medical evidence. No such evidence was forthcoming, although Mr and Mrs Kuehn did say that the dog was required for "therapeutic reasons" and that Vinnie was helping Mr and Mrs Kuehn "clinically".
Following Mr and Mrs Kuehn's refusal to remove Vinnie from Victory Place, proceedings were issued by VPMC requiring the removal of Vinnie from Victory Place.
The case was first heard by the County Court at Central London and a judgment was given in favour of VPMC. However, Mr and Mrs Kuehn were not satisfied and appealed to the High Court.
On appeal, the High Court had to decide whether the so called "Wednesbury principles" applied to the covenant. The Wednesbury principles derive from public law and apply to decisions made by public bodies, but principles can also apply in private law matters. Essentially, there are two limbs:
As it happens, Mr and Mrs Kuehn only pursued the first limb on appeal and argued that VPMC had taken irrelevant matters into account, in effect the strict no pets policy.
The High Court agreed with the County Court that the so called Wednesbury principles should apply to the covenant. Applying to these particular facts, Mr and Mrs Kuehn argued that the strict no pets policy meant that this was an "inflexible rule" which predetermined the outcome of all applications and, for that reason, they ought not to have taken the no pets policy into account.
As with the County Court, the High Court disagreed for the following reasons:
Although pet lovers will be disappointed by this decision, it does reinforce the general position that the majority rule in such developments. It is important, therefore, to be aware of all such regulations when acquiring property and not assume that a special exception will be made unless there are extenuating circumstances.